Theos-Talk Archives (July 2006 Message tt00312)

7/16/2006 4:08 PM

		Re:  Beliefs  Are they self-proving  ?

Dear Gordon,

I send back your notes with some brief comments, as I am not well. 

So please excuse the informal brevity.

Thank you,

Dallas

===========================
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Wood 
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 8:36 AM
To: 
Subject: 				RE: Beliefs

Dallas, Steve and friends

(from your post, G - my comments)

DTB said:	Fundamentally there is ONE BEING. 

This Being has two aspects, positive and negative. The positive is Spirit,
or CONSCIOUSNESS. The negative is SUBSTANCE, the subject of consciousness. 

-----------------------------------------

G - 	Substance is perhaps what I suggested as the content of
consciousness
and Spirit perhaps as pure consciousness? 

-------------------------------

2	DTB OFFERS:	As I understand it:  "Substance" is made up of a
vast mass of electro-magnetic "Lives" or "Jivas."  THEOSOPHY teaches: Each
is an independent and immortal "Life-atom."  Eh is as old as the entire
UNIVERSE and may be considered a permanent and essential part (along with
all the rest) of IT.  

The UNIVERSE is also to be viewed as NATURE, KOSMOS, DEITY, and its vast
inclusion of everything might be considered the "omnipresence" of the God
concept.  We are even as independent entities, a non-separable "part" of the
WHOLE.  In each of us (intelligent, thinking Life-Atoms) resides in
potential every awareness and potency of the ALL. [We are not always aware
of this.]

Consciousness (awareness, perception of self and selves, pain and pleasure,
and the entire panorama of the duality of sensations (Mental, Psychic, and
Physical), etc...)  This quality like "omniscience" includes in KOSMOS all
memories of actual HISTORY undistorted by personal desires. [This is the
source for individual and collective "Karma."

As an "immortal" it [one aspect  of the KOSMOS -- the "AKASA" stores the
memory (which appear to the physical brain-mind more or less complete) of
its observations and thoughts (both past and present; and also includes the
faculty of anticipation -- and. This is also found to include such "beliefs"
as it considers lawfully logical, and, to be valid (yet, in our physical
brain-mind, belief, as in most memories) resides an element of impermanence
and uncertainty.

------------------------------------------------------------

DTB said:	THEOSOPHY teaches that at this present stage of our
evolution we are all
developing the mental attitude of a deathless, eternal PERCEIVER.

--------------------------------

G - Isn't this like wondering through the content of consciousness in order
to get to a state of pure consciousness? By "wondering though" I guess I was
suggesting "detaching from" perceptions of reality, separateness,
reductionism and survival of the fittest injected into our neural network by
Newtonian and Darwinian educators and cultures.

----------------------------------

DTB said:  This Being/NON-BEING is the ABSOLUTE in its primary
manifestation. Being absolute there is nothing outside it. It is ALL-BEING.
It is indivisible, else it
would not be ABSOLUTE. 

If a portion could be separated, that remaining could not be ABSOLUTE,
because there would at once arise the question of COMPARISON between it and
the separated part. 

Comparison is incompatible with any idea of absoluteness. Therefore it is
clear that this fundamental One Existence, or Absolute Being must be THE
REALITY IN EVERY FORM THERE IS. 

------------------------------

2	DTB	This PRESENCE in even our brain-mind gives us the power in
meditative time [when the brain-mind is undistracted] to delve into the
meaning of the evolutionary purpose and program we are involved in.  In
other words we seek to understand that program and order as we might
perceive laws as virtues  -- KARMA.  The question of impartiality,
universality, adjustment, recompense, punishment, etc... come up for review.

---------------------------------

G - Guess one could say "It" is like "nothingness" because there is no way
to measure or compare it. "It" is all and nothing is outside "It" to use as
reference in comparing? So since we can't imagine or conceive of
"nothingness" doesn't this seem to suggest we can't conceive of what "It" is
that we are? This is where the old school thought gets in the way.  For
example, if we don't know what "It" is how can we understand how "It" works?
Sounds kind of Newtonian huh?

-------------------------------------------

2	DTB	To our brain-mind perceptions, so forcibly accustomed to
automatically devising memory files in terms of shapes and forms, the
seeming tenuity and imponderance of pure unselfish, impersonal LAWS (VIRTUE
IN ACTION) is difficult.

----------------------------------


DTB said:	(4) Fourth and last basic idea to be held is that expressed
in the Great
Hermetic Axiom. [MAN KNOW THYSELF.] It really sums up and synthesizes all
the others. 

As is the Inner, so is the Outer; as is the Great so is the Small; as it is
above, so it is below; there is but One Life and Law; and he that
worketh it is ONE. Nothing is Inner, nothing is Outer; nothing is Great,
nothing is Small; nothing is High, nothing is Low, in the Divine Economy. 

----------------------------------------------------

G - I find this particularly insightful. Jesus supposedly echoed this same
point in the Thomas Gospel responding to the question about when the end
will come. This seems to say there is only "One" and all the perceived parts
of it, if I can say that, function according to the one and only law.

2	DTB	AGREED

----------------------------------------------

DTB said:	(3) The third basic idea to be held is that Man is the
MICROCOSM. As he is
so, then all the Hierarchies of the Heavens exist within him.

But in truth there is neither Macrocosm nor Microcosm but ONE EXISTENCE.
Great and small are such only as viewed by a limited consciousness. 

---------------------------------------

G - Today if we observe what both new physics and new biology are uncovering
maybe we'll have some of the answers for a lot of what in HPB's days must
have seemed a little far reaching. Science discoveries seem to be aligning
more and more with Theosophical teachings even though they won't admit it.

2	DTB	AGREED  --  another piece of evidence of the accuracy of
THEOSOPHY 

-------------------------------------------------

G	So it would seem logical that a lot of what we need to know about
the "One"
is with us here and now. And if this is so isn't all we need to do is pay
attention to things we can observe, like the body, cells, molecules, atoms,
subatomic particles, etc. and how they work?  

2	DTB	We need to also take into account the "ETERNAL BACKGROUND."

----------------------------------------------

G	If so then perhaps we can understand more about "It" that we are
even though we might not know what "It" is? 

After all isn't there only one law? I don't mean to suggest man has
figured out the entire law but if we only embraced those aspects we can
observe it seems like there could be a quantum leap in the journey.

2	DTB	Isn't it rediscovery and re-proving, really ?

------------------------------------------------

BTW - Dallas, yes I have all the books you mentioned and more. I think too
many some times, but if we don't stay current with our brain food how can we
bring anything new to the table? The challenge seems to be choosing a diet
with enough variety to help prevent getting stuck in one place too long.

-------------------

2	DTB	And thinking all propositions out to a coherent
inter-locking basis.  All LAWS interact in a "brotherly" way.  

If we study Physics and Chemistry at college then we realize the whole
physical Universe (as n our world at least) is united and though vastly
diverse individually, this unity is a symphony -- a harmony, a dance of many
measured cadences.  That is evidence of the permanent background of the
ABSOLUTENESS, and the ever purposive advance of all NATURE -- both as a
whole and in its innumerable "parts."  to me. 

	DTB	To me, MATHEMATICS represents the purest kind of impersonal
"LAW" that prevails in our manifested world.  If accurately used and
represented there can be separate or personal opinions about mathematical
derivations or expressions.  Of course one has to be assured that those who
correspond with each other using this facility agree on accuracy and
sameness of meaning for the symbols and equations used.  In a way, we could
say:  "Only "virtuous" mathematics are valid.  Yet the FUNDAMENTALS are
always simple, and no one objects to their everpresence.

--------------------------------------------------

Thank you - G

--------------------------

	Best Wishes Always,

	Dal.